Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you cannot find what you are looking for please submit a records request.

Permit Review Detail

Permit Number: DP13-0217
Parcel: 113043400

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: DEV PKG - RESUBMITTAL

Permit Number - DP13-0217
Review Name: DEV PKG - RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
03/24/2014 CPIERCE1 START PLANS SUBMITTED Approved
03/24/2014 LIZA CASTILLO UTILITIES TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER Passed Approved on first review.
03/28/2014 DAVID RIVERA ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office
FROM: David Rivera
Principal Planner

PROJECT: DP13-0217
1005 E Fort Lowell Road
Development Package - Rezoning and DP Review for a New Parking Lot and Medical Service - Outpatient Use

TRANSMITTAL DATE: March31, 2014

DUE DATE: April 21, 2014

COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Unified Development Code and Technical Standards and the Development Package 2-06 Standards were addressed.

This plan has been reviewed for compliance with the Development Package Standards listed in section 2-06 of the City of Tucson Administrative Manual. Also compliance with applicable development criteria for the proposed use as listed in the City of Tucson Uniform Development Code (UDC).

The review comments include the actual standard first with the applicable Administrative Manual section number and the following paragraph is the actual comment related to the specific item that must be addressed. If you need to review the sections listed below click on the link or copy it in the address bar of your internet program. http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Arizona/tucson_az_udc/administrativemanual?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:tucson_udc_az

This link will take you directly to the section used for the standards review. The UDC requirements are in the Unified Development Code and can be viewed at the same web link as above

1. COMMENT: Section 3.3.3.G.5.c UDC, An applicant has one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a site plan that complies with zoning and other development requirements in effect at the time of application, unless an ordinance adopted by Mayor and Council during this period states otherwise. A site plan application that has been in review for a period of one year and has not yet been approved is considered denied. To continue the review of a site plan for the property, a new site plan must be submitted that complies with regulations in effect at the time of re-submittal. The new submittal initiates a new one-year review period. One year Expiration date is October 28, 2014. This development package has been reviewed concurrently with the rezoning case C9-13-12. Conditions of rezoning have not been established but will applicable and must be addressed on the development package. The rezoning case number will have to be listed in the lower right corner of all DP plan sheets. A general note that lists the case number, date of approval, and conditions of rezoning must be included on the cover sheet. Ensure that the next submittal of the development package demonstrates compliance with zoning comments related to the DS 2-06 and UDC requirements and all rezoning conditions.

2. SECTION 2-06.0.0: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE (TENTATIVE PLATS AND SITE PLANS)

Section:

2-06.1.0 GENERAL

2-06.2.0 APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS

2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS

2-06.4.0 CONTENT REQUIREMENTS

2-06.1.0 GENERAL

2-06.1.1 PURPOSE
This standard has been prepared for the purpose of informing applicants of the submittal and review requirements for development package documents to assure proper and adequate information is presented in a consistent manner, thereby providing the basis for an efficient and timely review. The development package documents are prepared in support of applications for building permits and related reviews.

The information that is requested establishes the basis upon which the project will be approved and could affect what is required of the property in the future, should there be a proposal for expansion or for a different use of the property.

This standard does not waive any applicable city regulations or codes.

2-06.1.2 APPICABILITY
This standard shall be used for all site plans and tentative plats submitted to PDSD for review.

2-06.2.1 APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
Development Package applications are available from PDSD. Completed applications and accompanying materials shall be submitted to PDSD. Incomplete or inaccurate applications will not be accepted, nor will any application in which the pre-application conference or neighborhood meeting requirements have not been met. The types of documents and the specific number of copies required of each of the documents are on the PDSD website or may be obtained from PDSD. Re-submittals of development packages require a comment response letter that details how all previous comments have been addressed. Provide the same number of copies of the comment response letter as plans provided.
The following documents and information shall be submitted upon application:

2-06.2.1 Application Form
A completed application signed by the property owner or authorized designee;

2-06.2.2 Development Package
A development package must be prepared to the format and content requirements described herein;

2-06.2.3 Related Reviews
In addition to the plan process, a project may require review for other types of plans and documents. The applications for those processes are submitted to the appropriate department for review and approval. These related reviews can be applied for so that review can occur concurrently with the development package application. However, it must be understood that, should the related application be approved subject to conditions or denied, this may affect the;

2-06.2.4 Concurrent Reviews
The development package is designed to allow for concurrent review of any site related reviews. Concurrent review means that all plans and documents needed for the review are submitted as one package. Examples of site related reviews include but are not limited to: site plans, landscape plans, NPPO plans, water harvesting plans, grading plans, SWPPP plans, floodplain use permits, and overlay reviews. Separate applications are often required for the different site related reviews even if the plans are submitted concurrently; and,

2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS

2-06.3.1 - Each sheet shall measure 24 inches by 36 inches and include a minimum one inch margin on left side and one-half inch margin on all other sides to facilitate efficient record keeping. A larger sheet format may be used with the approval of the Planning and Development Services Department (PDSD).

2-06.3.2 - All mapped data shall be drawn at an engineering scale having no more than 50 feet to the inch. This scale is the minimum accepted to assure the plan will be legible during review and when digitized and/or reduced for record-keeping purposes. The same scale shall be used for all sheets within the set. Smaller scales (60:1 or greater) may be used for some or all of the sheets with the prior approval of PDSD when it is determined legibility and the ability to be digitized and/or reduced for archiving will not be affected.
2-06.3.3 - All lettering and text (upper or lower case), and numbering, shall be a minimum of three-thirty-seconds inches in height to assure the plan will be legible during review and when digitized and/or reduced for archiving.

2-06.4.0 CONTENT REQUIREMENTS

2-06.4.8 - Existing Site Conditions
The following information shall be provided on the plan/plat drawing to indicate the existing conditions on site and within 50 feet of the site. On sites bounded by a street with a width of 50 feet or greater, the existing conditions across the street will be provided.

1. Follow-up to comment 10: This comment will remain until all other comments have been addressed. Both the Pima County Parcel Tax Code combo and a Recorded lot combo covenant will be required for this development. It is acknowledged that the both combos cannot be completed or executed until CODAC assumes possession of the properties. A hold on the Certificate of occupancy will be placed by Zoning if the forms are not completed and submitted to PDSD Zoning review prior to the request of the C of O. (The Lot Combo Covenant can be downloaded from the PDSD web site link http://pdsd.tucsonaz.gov/pdsd/all-application-forms-submittal-requirements . The file name is Lot Combo Declaration.

Also, label on sheet two (2) the distance of the northeast segment of the parking lot property. See redlines.

2-06.4.8.A - Provide site boundary/subdivision perimeter information, including bearing in degrees, minutes, and seconds, with basis for bearing noted, together with distances in feet, to hundredths of a foot, or other functional reference system.

PREVIOUS COMMENT 10: It is clear that the site consists of two (2) separate parcels. Per the Rezoning case staff report, a tax parcel combo to combine the two (2) parcels will be required. Unless otherwise instructed zoning will not be able to approve the development package until the tax parcel combo has been completed. If the tax parcel combo does not become a condition of rezoning or is not seen as a requirement to approve the rezoning, Zoning will require that a lot combo covenant along with a cross access and parking agreement be recorded prior to approval of the development package. The required documents will have to be submitted no later than the final submittal of the development package to verify the recording information and that the appropriate notes are listed on the development package cover sheet.

2-06.4.9 - Information on Proposed Development
The following information on the proposed project shall be shown on the drawing or added as notes.

2. Follow-up to comment 14: Same as follow-up comment 1.

PREVIOUS COMMENT 14: If the parcels are not combined, a cross access cross / parking as well as a parking lease agreement will be required. Theses documents will have to be recorded, documented on the site plan and copies of the recorded documents included with the development package submittal.

2-06.4.9.U - Indicate graphically, where possible, compliance with conditions of rezoning.



3. Follow-up to comment 19: The following comments are related specifically to the rezoning conditions.

Condition 10: A copy of the Neighborhood Communication Plan could not be verified in the submitted DP. The response to condition 10 states that the document has been provided to PDSD. It does not state who the recipient of the document was. Clarify who at PDSD was provided with the required NCP document to verify compliance with the submittal.



PREVIOUS COMMENT 19: Provide a separate response letter detailing how compliance with all conditions of re-zoning has been addressed. Demonstrate on the plans where possible how compliance with the conditions of re-zoning applicable to site requirements will be met.



Follow-up to comment 23: The comments are related specifically to the rezoning conditions. Address as requested.

Condition 10: Per your response to condition10, the Neighborhood Communication Plan was submitted to PDSD but it does not state who in PDSD got it. Clarify when and who received the document.

Condition 12: Label on sheet 3 the actual distance from the employee smoking/rest area to the north property line.

Condition 13: Two (2) additional sheets (demo and lighting plan sheets) were included in the DP submittal package that have not been numbered accordingly or listed in the sheet index on the cover sheet.

Condition 33: Dedication of right of way for Fort Lowell is required; the amount is to be determined by COT TDOT. The dedication must be completed

The new right of way dimension must be labeled on sheet 3. If the recordation information for the right of way dedication is available prior to final approval of the DP, list recordation information on sheet 3 of the DP.

PREVIOUS COMMENT 23: As mentioned in a previous comment, this DP plan has been reviewed without the benefit of conditions of rezoning. Expect additional comments on the subsequent DP submittal and review.

If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608.

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package site plan and any requested documents.
03/31/2014 MARTIN BROWN COT NON-DSD FIRE Approved
04/03/2014 PGEHLEN1 UTILITIES SOUTHWEST GAS Approved Informational documents in SIRE
04/03/2014 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Reqs Change The existing public water main located in the right-of-way south of the subject property is labeled as "EXISTING 8" PUBLIC VCP SEWER PER PLAN 1-73-16".
04/03/2014 PGEHLEN1 COT NON-DSD TUCSON POLICE DEPARTMENT Approved I have no issues with this proposal.

CSO Becky Noel #37968
Tucson Police Dept
837-7428
04/08/2014 LOREN MAKUS ENGINEERING REVIEW Approved
04/11/2014 RONALD BROWN ZONING HC REVIEW Reqs Change ALL RESUBMITTAL COMMENTS PRESENTED IN ALL CAPS

SHEET 3 OF 12
1. OK
2. Insure slopes of all accessible routes comply with ICC A117.1, SEction 403.3; 5% maximum running slope and 2% maximum cross slopes. Provide a note to that effect.
NOTE 10 REFERS TO EXISTING STAIRS TO REMAIN

3. OK

SHEET 5 OF 12
4. OK

5. OK

ADDITIONAL COMMENT:
6. PROVIDE A LARGE SCALE DETAIL OF THE NEW RAMP ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING. CORRECTLY REFERENCE THIS AS A RAMP AND NOT A STAIR NOR SIDE WALK. SHOW ALL ACCESSIBLE REQUIREMENTS SUCH AS DIMENSIONS, GRADE SLOPES, SPOT GRADES, RAMP RUN, LANDINGS AND HANDRAILS. PROVIDE AN ELEVATION OF THE REQUIRED HANDRAILS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE RAMP.

END OF REVIEW
04/14/2014 ZELIN CANCHOLA COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Approved
04/18/2014 JOHN BEALL COT NON-DSD COMMUNITY PLANNING Denied PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
COMMENTS

Regarding
SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application

CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT

DP13-0217 CODAC at Cobblestone - Ft. Lowell Road

(X) Tentative Plat
(X) Development Plan
(X) Landscape Plan
() Revised Plan/Plat
() Board of Adjustment
() Other - Elevations

CROSS REFERENCE: C9-13-12 CODAC - Ft. Lowell

NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Plan Tucson and Kino Area Plan

GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: NO

COMMENTS DUE BY: April 20, 2014

SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN/PLAT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY COMMUNITY PLANNING AND PRESERVATION, AND STAFF SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS:

() No Annexation or Rezoning Conditions, Not an RCP - No Comment
() Proposal Complies with Annexation or Rezoning Conditions
() RCP Proposal Complies with Plan Policies
(X) See Additional Comments Attached
() No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on:
(X) Resubmittal Required:
(X) Tentative Plat
(X) Development Plan
(X) Landscape Plan
() Other

REVIEWER: msp
DATE: 04/18/14
Planning and Development Services Department
Community Planning Section
DP13 0217 - CODAC at Cobblestone - Ft. Lowell Road
April 18, 2014

Based on the applicant's request; a concurrent review is under way for both Development Plan 13-0217, and Rezoning Case C9-13-12 CODAC, to change the land use zone from R-2 residential to P, Parking zone, to allow the site to be utilized as an expansion to an existing office complex with outpatient services.

Prior to the approval of the proposed rezoning conditions, as approved under Ordinance 11145.

Staff offers the following comments:

1. Prior to development plan resubmittal, correct development plan to be in compliance with rezoning condition # 12, of which one of the requirements is to have the dedicated employee rest "area" delineated on the development plan. Please correct all applicable sheets to identify employee rest "area" by KEYNOTE, and the employee rest "area" outlined/delineated to show location). Currently only a hand note (not keynote) points to a bench as the employee rest area.
2. Prior to development plan and landscape plan approval, please correct all applicable sheets to correct all Legends/Tables and KEYNOTE to be legible.
3. Development plan, sheet 8 of 12 makes reference on the "P" zone parcel to a rezoning case C9-08-05? If appropriate, please identify case or remove if in error.
4. Prior to development plan approval, correct applicable sheets to identify by KEYNOTE and delineation that the northern border of the "P" zone parcel has a twenty-five (25) foot wide landscape buffer.
04/21/2014 JOE LINVILLE LANDSCAPE REVIEW Reqs Change The plans received are not legible, so it is requested that the plans be corrected and submitted for an additional review.
04/22/2014 PGEHLEN1 COT NON-DSD ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Reqs Change The submittal has been reviewed on behalf of ESD and the following comment needs to be addressed:

1. Per TSM Section 8-01.5.3.E., the minimum turning radiuses required for the collection vehicle to service the metal containers shall be (36) feet for the inside rear wheels radius and (50) feet for the outside front bumper as illustrated in Figure 7. It appears the rear wheels will run over the inside curb when making the turn in front of the enclosure. Modify the curb or other portions of the vehicle path to provide the required clear turning path.

If there are any questions, I can be contacted at kperry@perryengineering.net
04/22/2014 PATRICIA GEHLEN ZONING-DECISION LETTER REVIEW Reqs Change This review has been completed and resubmittal is required. Please resubmit the following items

1) Two rolled sets of the plans
2) A disk that contains all items submitted
3) All items requested by review staff
4) All items needed to approve this plan

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
04/30/2014 SHANAE POWELL OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
04/30/2014 CPIERCE1 REJECT SHELF Completed